Rose Marie Belforti is a 57-year-old cheese maker, the elected town clerk in this sprawling Finger Lakes farming community and a self-described Bible-believing Christian. She believes that God has condemned homosexuality as a sin, so she does not want to sign same-sex marriage licenses; instead, she has arranged for a deputy to issue all marriage licenses by appointment.

But when a lesbian couple who own a farm near here showed up at the town hall last month, the women said they were unwilling to wait.

Now Ms. Belforti is at the heart of an emerging test case, as national advocacy groups look to Ledyard for an answer to how the state balances a religious freedom claim by a local official against a civil rights claim by a same-sex couple.

It's like a Christian doctor in a military hospital if abortions are suddenly allowed there. If he won't murder babies he should resign. The anti-Christian Leftist agenda at work. You have a right to practice your faith without restriction,the constitution guarantees that—but if you do it where we don't want you to you don't get arrested,just fired. Validate my homosexual travesty or resign—never mind you held this job for decades before the Left installed this abomination of a law. LEAVE Christian, we have atheists to replace you!

It’s not up to a civil servant to determine which laws she will follow, repulsive as the associated action’s request may be. I believe the saying is “I don’t pay you to think.” If conscience dictates she can’t perform a duty, she should resign.
This situation is quite different than a priest refusing to give the sacrament or a doctor in a Catholic or other religious hospital refusing to commit an abortion. Throughout history individuals have payed far greater prices for maintaining their convictions.
A solution might, if this were an elected position, for her to resign and then run again with her beliefs in full view. If she were to be re-elected with support of the population, she would be able to claim she represents the will of the voters.

16
posted on 09/28/2011 3:42:04 AM PDT
by j.argese
(You may think you've won the day, in the end you will surely lose the important race.)

The New York Times has printed pictures of homosexual couples on their weddings and announcements page for years now. What always strikes me is how frequently these couples, whether male or female, resemble each other.

This is a contrived lawsuit: the clerk didnt refuse , the couple didnt want to wait. Therefore , there was a legal accomodation to protect the rights of the gay couple , as well as the clerk.

Well, she did refuse, and there's no getting around that. Second, I'm not sure how this protects the rights of the gay couple. If another coupple, heterosexual, were to walk in and had the document signed, while the gay couple was waiting, would you consider that equal treatment under the law.

That said, How far does ths priciple extend. If signing or stamping the document is equivalent to moral acceptance, then what about the office itself. How does she morally distance herself from that.

"Natural Born Citizen" means born to parents who are citizens, in the country.

"Marriage" means a legal joining of a man and a woman.

"Enumerated and Limited Powers" are just that.

"Gay" is not happy at all. When used in the co-opted propaganda sense of the word, it is wrong, and indeed, a most unhappy human condition.

Adultery and bastardy are indeed REAL crimes, per the fundamental laws of Nature and Nature's G-d. Removing them from the legal code is folly, and removing those crimes hem from common social disdain has been a disaster with tens of millions of innocent harmed victims and climbing.

Yup, that's about the size of it, and without a dominant culture, it's only gonna get worse.

It wasn't our legal system, oour political system, or even the Constitution that kept all this stuff at bay. It was a common culture with common morals that did it. Those things are gone now, and this is what it breeds.

By now most people tolerate homosexual relationships: apart from some fringe elements like the Westboro Baptists.

Now gays want society's endorsement: in the form of a recognition of their marriage. The "gay housekeeping seal of approval".

Next they want subsidy in the form of spouse benefits and immigration rights for gay "brides".

Personally, I'm happy to tolerate monogamous gay couples in stable relationships. I don't approve of their arrangements - but I disapprove more strongly of their promiscuous co-sexualists. But, I am damned if I'll subsidize them

I think the best compromise is to support gay civil unions. We (society) can give qualified approval of more stable and less self-destructive lifestyles, employers can fairly treat employees with regards to private spouse benefits, and questions like immigration and adoption can be addressed separately.

I'm happy to tolerate monogamous gay couples in stable relationships. Well, you said it yourself: Tolerance, endorsement, subsidy. Each one gives way to the other and each generation, so to speak, will play their part, like you are doing here.

Homosexuality is either wrong, or it is. It is either moral, or it is not. There are no in betweens. They know that, and it is about time everyone else admitted it also.

The First Amendment doesn't protect her, and it can't in principle. It is not the Constitution which protects a culture, it is the culture itself which preserves the Constitution. That is why John Adams said:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Wherein it is understood that government is constituted of the people, and therefore, also, their morals which are derived from religion, and in particular, the Judeo/Christian religion.

LOL, it’s like all the homos complaining about not being able to discus their weekends in the office. Who the hell wants to hear about that nasty shit anyway. If a homo came up to me and started talking about what he did over the weekend I’d walk away.

I think both society at large and the couple themselves benefit. Because of those societal benefits I'm happy to see gay couple given my implicit qualified approval in the form of civil unions. In the end though, gay couples are getting a greater benefit from their stability than society is.

Stable heterosexual couples bring greater societal benefits through child-rearing. That role deserves and justifies unqualified approval in the form of legal marriage.

Second, I'm not sure how this protects the rights of the gay couple. If another coupple, heterosexual, were to walk in and had the document signed, while the gay couple was waiting, would you consider that equal treatment under the law.

That will not happen. The arrangement which was made setup a schedule for ALL marriage licenses to be signed by the deputy, with a set, posted scheduled of days available and hours of operation.

Last I checked, there is no requirement for city, town, etc... offices to be available 24 hours a day just so that lesbian and homosexual couples can get married.

In my little town, we can only get safety/building inspection permits issued on Mondays and Tuesdays. The city inspectors only work on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Inconvenient at times, but not a travesty as this couple is making it to be!

29
posted on 09/28/2011 5:59:22 AM PDT
by ExTxMarine
(PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)

If ALL marriage licenses are signed by a deputy, by appointment, why is this a “rights” case? Isn’t the homosexual pair breaking a rule in place for everyone by requiring her to service them without making an appointment?

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Therein lies the problems of today!

Even people on here are telling her to quit because it is the law. The law which was written doesn't jibe with the will and moral compass of most of the people! This has been demonstrated in EVERY SINGLE STATE WHERE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WAS ON THE BALLOT! So, to tell this woman to quit because it is the law is completely contrary to where we should be going with this argument!

We the People, especially Judeo-Christian people, have been pushed and pushed and pushed to be removed from the public square. Now is not the time to simply say, oh well, let's go home! Now is the time to push back - we should have been pushing back the entire time! However, our "turn the other check" methods have gotten both sides slapped, a busted lip, a dislocated collar bone and two broken legs! I think we have turned enough checks and it is time to fight for what is right! This woman has a right to stand her ground. and I say, good for her! It is never too late, and no person is too small as to guide the masses when what she is doing is correct!

33
posted on 09/28/2011 6:09:32 AM PDT
by ExTxMarine
(PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)

That will not happen. The arrangement which was made setup a schedule for ALL marriage licenses to be signed by the deputy, with a set, posted scheduled of days available and hours of operation.

I doubt it's this simple. If the position of Town Clerk allowed her to legally pass these duties on to some other entity within local government as a matter of policy, she wouldn't need a lawyer or the argument that New York is required to accommodate her religious beliefs.

Actually, she informed them that they had to make an appointment - which is the rule for ALL marriage licenses.

I'll ask you the same question then. If she was acting within law and the authority of her position as Town Clerk to relegate it to some other entity within local government, then why does she need a lawyer and the argument that the State of New York needs to accomodate her religious beliefs. Why does she need to make a First Amendment argument rather than just simply say she made a policy decison and that's that.

If the position of Town Clerk allowed her to legally pass these duties on to some other entity within local government as a matter of policy... The deputy was already signing the licenses when she was on break or when she was out of the office. They just made arrangements for the deputy to do this on a regular basis. So, it was completely within the rights of the local government to make such arrangements.

...she wouldn't need a lawyer...The reason she needs a lawyer is because these mentally-diseased women didn't like the town setting up an hours of operation to accommodate them. They want THIS WOMAN to be forced to sign their license, even though they have no right to demand who signs it or when they operate their hours.

... or the argument that New York is required to accommodate her religious beliefs.You do realize that all US government offices and US companies are required to make reasonable accommodations for ALL religious beliefs! If I hire a Muslim, knowing he is a Muslim, and I refuse to allow him to practice his five prayers a day, when I can reasonably accommodate him, then I am violating his rights! Companies have lost lawsuits concerning this very thing. Schools have been ordered to allow kids to take breaks to allow these prayers.

Accommodating religion is not a new thing! The only thing new/different is that these disturbed women think they have more rights than someone else. And even worse, they have a bully pulpit called the MSM with which they are allowed to spout their stupidity!

39
posted on 09/28/2011 6:48:08 AM PDT
by ExTxMarine
(PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)

The law which was written doesn't jibe with the will and moral compass of most of the people!

The people who sit in the executive, the legislature and the judiciary weren't born there, and they didn't inherit them either. They were put there, directly and indirectly, by the majority of these so called moral citizens. There's an old saying...we get the government we deserve.

KLBJ in Austin has a topic about gay "rights" today. One lady called in and talked about their trip to a movie theater last weekend. She and her husband were celebrating their 30th wedding anniversary and two women started kissing. She made a comment of "Look at those two lesbians kissing". She and her husband were asked to leave.

42
posted on 09/28/2011 7:06:00 AM PDT
by Arrowhead1952
(Dear God, thanks for the rain, but please let it rain more in Texas. Amen.)

Do you or have you ever lived in New York? (I have - that’s why this ticks me off so much)

Her supervisors stabbed her in the back. The policy, if applied uniformly, fits easily within the boundaries of the law. The lesbian pair demanded an exception from policy, and the clerk’s supervisors appear to have not sided strongly with established policy.

She did not relegate it to another “entity”. A policy that marriage licenses are signed by appointment only and gave responsibility for fulfilling those appointments to a senior member of the clerk’s staff. The clerk herself and the clerk’s staff are (or should be) the same legal entity, as the position is not considered to be an individual, but an office.

It is also possible that the courts themselves decided they knew better, and disallowed the policy argument.

The reason for the policy is the first amendment issue. Therefore, if the policy argument falls flat, one argues the reason behind the policy.

I’m not ashamed to admit I grew up in New York State, but it’s getting close.

Your arguments completely ignores the John Adams quote which I posted earlier: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

I think we can agree that our moral and religious compass is completely out of whack when we are arguing that people actively engaging in immoral actions seem to have more rights than those who are taking a moral stand on their religious beliefs.

More importantly, you should know the entire quote from Alexis de Tocqueville. He said, "...in a democracy, we get the government we deserve." We are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Representative Democracy. Which means that these people are supposed to go and represent the wills and wishes of the people they represent. However, as I stated before, in every state where the direct democracy option (ballot initiative - where your "we deserve the government we get" comes into play), same-sex marriage has FAILED!

It has only been implemented where the representatives have gone AGAINST the overwhelming will of the people or where the judicial branches have re-written the laws to allow rights that never existed.

44
posted on 09/28/2011 7:15:07 AM PDT
by ExTxMarine
(PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)

I don't care how many wives Mitt Romney has, as long as he's faithful to them.

Well, it's good that you don't care about polygamy because make no mistake, it's coming, and there's not a damm thing anyone can do about. The simple reason is this, Polygamy is logically inferred from same sex marriage.

Consider:

Traditional mariage is the union of a man and a woaman. It is therefore based on dissimilarity, gender. Since there are only two genders, male and female, then the qualitative infers the quantitative. If you alter the qualitative, you also alter the quantitative. Gay marriage is based on similarity, and therefore, the qulitative yields a quantity that is variable since there is no inherent limiting factor.

To say that gay marriage should be limited to two people is completely and undeniably arbitrary without any rational reason whatsoever.

It would have taken an army to drag me and my wife out of that theater!

We MUST start demanding that we are allowed to use our own words and thoughts! This is thought-police! This is them changing the words we are allowed to use in public!

No one has a right to not be offended! If you get offended or hurt from someones words, then you CHOSE to get offended or hurt!

One of my favorite lines and scenes from any movie comes from "Roadhouse." When Patrick Swayze is telling them to ignore what people say. One of the guys ask him what if they call my momma a whore? And he was laughing at the thought and the words that he just stated! Then Swayze answers with, "Is she?" And then those exact same words made the guy mad! You see, he CHOSE to get angry over the same words he just used!

47
posted on 09/28/2011 7:21:15 AM PDT
by ExTxMarine
(PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)

Its not up to a civil servant to determine which laws she will follow, repulsive as the associated actions request may be.

You have stated in the above sentence that she was not following the law. That's not true. She just wasn't following the law in the manner that the lesbian pair expected.

The law requires the office of the clerk to process the licenses. It does NOT specify an exact manner or time frame, and therefore a standard policy that requires an appointment with an individual on the clerk's office staff is a reasonable approach to satisfaction of the actual requirements of the law - even if it isn't the expectation of the applicants.

That is how the existence of this standard office policy is related to your original post.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.